When France Fell: The Vichy Crisis and the Fate of the Anglo-American Alliance w/Dr. Michael Neiberg

U.S. Army War College Professor, Dr. Michael Neiberg provides an in-depth analysis of the repercussions of the shocking six-week defeat of France by the Nazi regime in 1940. In panic and desperation, U.S. leaders chose to recognize the collaborationist Vichy government. Dr. Neiberg will explore the resulting effects on the Anglo-American alliance, the relationships with other allies, and the prosecution of the war with Germany.

[@hoppish088]

A nit, it was 50 destroyers. They were not useless, you can usually refurbish a ship faster than you cab build one. 30 of the 50 were in service in under a year and FDR transfers 10 Coast Guard cutters the following year. Never trust an Army historian on Naval history. Lol

[@thevillaaston7811]

Actually it was 46 destroyers to Britain and 4 to Canada. Some od the worst sea boats in Royal Navy. 30 in Service by May 1941 is nothing to celebrate. They were supposed to be ready for use in few weeks.

[@bencarroll1122]

You're correct that they weren't useless. Against a modern DD in combat they would have been, but even in their decrepit state they were better able to deal with a U-boat on convoy escort than the open bridge trawlers and corvettes the British had been using. They served a purpose until new ships could be built in large numbers by midwar. However, Professor Neiberg is anything but a nit. Fight your Britishness. Set down the arrogant peevishness and go brush your teeth.

[@garyhill2740]

@@thevillaaston7811 Perhaps the length of time to refurbish them had as much to do with the strain already placed on British ship yards as it did with the condition of the ships? Certainly refurbishing existing ships allowed the RN to allocate steel to something else that was vitally needed.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@garyhill2740 They were supposed to be a near ready use stop-gap before the Flower Class Corvettes became available in large numbers in late 1940 and 1941. This from Churchill in December 1940: WINSTON S CHURCHILL. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. CASSELL & CO LTD VOLUME II THEIR FINEST HOUR REVISED EDITION NOVEMBER 1950. P533 ‘Prime Minister to First Sea Lord 14.XII.40 Let me have a full account of the condition of the American destroyers, showing their many defects and the little use we have been able to make of them so far. I should like to have the paper by me for consideration in the near future.’

[@garyhill2740]

@@thevillaaston7811 The Flower class were such excellent escorts.

[@clydecessna737]

In Britain we see the Destroyers for Bases Agreement this way: We were desperate for the destroyers which turned out to be either in very good condition or poor condition depending on which contractor that had put them to bed after WW1. The bases were irrelevant; they were a ruse to Congress as the Cash and Carry Neutrality Law was in effect and Britain had run out of cash. The most important thing was to get the US in the habit of materially helping Britain.

[@joeymurdazalotmore6355]

Deal n get britain used to evac-ing our new bases,

[@thevillaaston7811]

How do you speak for Britain?..

[@markmaki4460]

Yes my understanding is the destroyers were better appreciated and regarded than Dr. Neiberg asserts. Though they were not state of the art - indeed, i think they had turning circles wider than some battleships - any escort that complicated, and thereby often deterred, a U-boat attack was better than nothing. A 12-year old sheepdog protects the herd better than no sheepdog.

[@cohenworrior898]

Yes, well he's looking at it from the US side. They were pretty useless to them, they had better kit already and even better kit was on the way.

[@petergarrone8242]

I always thought Pearl Harbour attack "woke the sleeping giant" but perhaps it was the fall of France, judging by the arms buildup.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

Just so. FDR kicked the war preparations into high gear after May '40. Think of the Louisiana Maneuvers and how important that was.

[@christopherrowe7460]

I entirely agree. From my family's history, my grandfather's Naval career was directly impacted by the Fall of France. He'd just finished a fleet tour based out of Pearl Harbor in May 1940 when he arrived in San Francisco on his way to complete the senior course at the US Naval War College. His orders suddenly changed, sending him to Norfolk Naval Air Station as its XO (later acting CO when Bellinger was sent to Pearl Harbor). He focused a lot on beefing up security, especially countering perceived threats from Nazi spies, as well as expanding the air base to accommodate the rapid growth in numbers of aircraft and air crew. This excellent talk touched on both of these concerns, and it really helped put my grandfather's experience in context.

[@denise2063]

this is excellent! A lot of details of which I was unaware-- Thank you!

[@iankingsleys2818]

That submarine that landed Mark Clark in Algeria was not a midget submarine but a full size Royal Navy S Class, HMS Seraph, later on for one operation USS Seraph. Later on in the war, Seraph is the submarine that drops the body of "Major Martin" of the Royal Marines off the Southern Spanish Coast with secret allied plans to land troops in Sardinia and Greece

[@johnelliott0101]

Fascinating

[@danielgregg2530]

This lecturer gets a lot of things wrong, I am sorry to say.

[@markmaki4460]

@@danielgregg2530 Indeed you are correct. I was particularly irritated with his dismissal of the old destroyers the US loaned to the RN. I expanded on this in another reply - i'll paste it below: ... my understanding is the destroyers were better appreciated and regarded than Dr. Neiberg asserts. Though they were not state of the art - indeed, i think they had turning circles wider than some battleships - any escort that complicated, and thereby often deterred, a U-boat attack was better than nothing. A 12-year old sheepdog protects the herd better than no sheepdog.

[@danielgregg2530]

@@markmaki4460 Yeah, I have watched more than one of his lectures, and he is at least a little too flippant (in point of fact, sloppy) in the name of entertainment.

[@THEDISAFFECTED]

​@@danielgregg2530I mean, I couldn't get past the fact that here's a historian who thinks Theodore Dreiser is Dr. Seuss.

[@clydecessna737]

Winston described De Gaul as "like a lama surprised in his bath". I have met his son Philippe and spoke for some time with him in the middle of a farmer's field. De Gaul for me is interesting: like Conrad Adenauer, he was a conservative man who created a liberal state.

[@MenwithHill]

De Gaulle was very similar to figures like George Washington and Mustafa Kemal, he saw himself as above politics and despised political parties - while his conservative, nationalistic ideology would go on to guide France for decades, it was never a very well defined thing. More like a mix of pride and pragmatism. The other interesting thing is that while he generally remains widely respected for his wartime service, his return to power during the Algerian Crisis and subsequent rule and reforging of the French state ultimately ended in failure and disgrace, being ousted during the leftist riots of May '68 (which continued to define much of French left activism until the early 2000's).

[@Paeoniarosa]

I wish this was a 2 hour talk, very interesting.

[@ms.sherlock]

France…..Vichy France….no comment….

[@BK-uf6qr]

I learned something new, a different perspective. So much of ww2 history has the same angles and same story lines. This is a fresh take on a well treaded path.

[@jimb9063]

Indeed. Never mind the details, the date of the start of WW2 is different in different places, and it's not always even known as WW2 by all combatants either.

[@revolver_84]

Very good and educational. Good lecture

[@willboudreau1187]

P.S. "Theodore Dreisser", as you say the real name for Dr. Seuss, is actually Theodore Geisel.

[@marshaprice8226]

Very interesting lecture! I had never heard anything about the US reaction to the fall of France and our interaction with the Vichy government in any of the many World War II documentaries that I have seen.

[@christianfournier6862]

Magnificent lecture by a well informed historian. Being a french baby boomer and having lived through the variations in historical accounts about Vichy France, I wish simply to make three comments : --(1)--There is no doubt that there was a fascist strand in the Vichy regime. Pétain had asked to be called “Chef de l'État” (an approximate french translation of “Fuhrer”) to emphasize the change! But the arch villain of this regime has been Laval. There is a recent 2018 biography of him by Renaud Meltz: “Pierre Laval; Un mystère français” which makes abundantly clear that he was an utterly unprincipled man, solely driven by a lust for power and lacking any sort of moral compass. Laval has been the major decider for Vichy's complicity in the deportation of Jews (first foreign, then french), and if this deportation has not been as effective as planned by the Vichy regime that was because spontaneous initiatives of the population (including baptism certificates by priests) enabled many Jews to be hidden under fake identities. Laval early on was convinced of a Nazi ultimate victory, and this underlined his whole « pragmatic » policy. A discovery I made from the lecture is the Impact of René de Chambrun on Roosevelt; Renaud Meltz also mentions this in his book, but not as forcefully. --(2)--Roosevelt decidedly has been unlucky with the men he backed to lead France. Giraud had no political bent whatsoever and quickly proved it in the Algiers post-Torch cauldron. I disagree with Dr Neiberg's uchronian description of a Darlan rising to power in France if he had escaped assassination. While not branded pro-German as much as Laval, Darlan had met Hitler and had confirmed Vichy's collaborationist stance during his Feb.'41-Apr.'42 Premiership; the Resistance movements inside France would never have accepted him. --(3)--To answer a post-conference question, the naval battle between the French navy and the Siamese (now Thaï) navy took place on Jan. 17 1941 and is named the battle of Ko-Chang. The Siamese were taken by surprise and beaten with the loss of one coastal defence ship and three torpedo boats. On Jan. 31 1941 an armistice brokered by the Japanese was signed, ending the short war. __ .

[@steveschlackman4503]

An outstanding presentation.

[@davidlavigne207]

I've always thought of Vichy France when I viewed France after 9-11. France took a stance that they did not wish to be a part of the coalition being put together by the United States to invade Iraq. I have always felt that this was the act of a sovereign Nation choosing the best course for its political interests. I sometimes view Vichy France in the same light. Whatever way one might judge France for surrendering in 1940, I have always tried to see it as a nation looking out for its interests regardless of the consequences that resulted many years later. No one could have foreseen the events beyond June of 1940 in the French government at the time. I think it is harsh to judge Vichy France years after the facts as we know them. Brilliant insights.

[@bobylapointe8784]

This is very intersting but there is at least one book about that in french : Jean baptiste Duroselle, politique étrangère de la France : l'abîme, 1939-1944. The book is from 1982.

[@ChrisHodgsonCorben-Dallas]

Great lecture and great questions

[@jimdicrocco7163]

Simply outstanding.

[@JalenRawley]

I've watched nearly every WWI lecture I can find, so I've been moving into WWII lectures. As an audio engineer, it is staggering to me how every single one of these videos has audio issues, usually stemming from the mic itself. I would have fired that audio engineer after the second time, and this is now somewhere around the eighth or ninth video in a row with audio issues throughout. This is at the US Army War College? Come on guys, dudes in a mosh pit at a death metal concert capture better audio with their phones. Drop me a line, I can carve out a hole in my schedule.

[@robertgresham3603]

He begins at 2:20

[@FortuneZer0]

It was a good lecture but was the sparce static caused by wool/polyester?

[@jimtaggert42]

it was you mom

[@bcvetkov8534]

Imo Neiberg missed a lot of important moments in regards to the Free French and Vichy French governments. The battle for equatorial Africa and Syria are big moments. The surrender of Indochina to Japan is another huge moment he didn't talk about. Ik he only had 40 minutes to talk but to go from France falling in 6 weeks to operation torch really is puzzling.

[@normanconnor2771]

I agree. In Syria I believe Free France forces attacked Vichy France forces. All of that wasn't mentioned

[@johnlustig4322]

An excellent lecture worthy of the A.H.A.C.

[@ianwalter62]

Except for the inaccurate throw away line about the 50 flushdeckers... minus 2 points.

[@michaelogden5958]

A very interesting talk. Thanks!

[@Phoenix-ej2sh]

Thank you for this. This particular topic has always been very confusing for me.

[@ciroalb3]

What's this about a "peace conference" after the German defeat of Britain? 7:35

[@normanconnor2771]

I think that Vichy France was parroting what the German's were saying that Britain was finished but she didn't know it yet

[@EurojuegosBsAs]

Very interesting lecture. Thank you

[@danielgregg2530]

I have to wonder about this lecturer. Never do I see anything of his when he makes some statement that is contrary to what you hear about some issue that is completely different than what he is saying; in this instance, the Destroyers for Bases deal.

[@4OHz]

In todays dollars $9 Billion of 1940 is $190 billion…

[@willboudreau1187]

The most ASTOUNDING fact from this lecture is at the 12 minute mark, where he shows the 2-navy act set out funds to build 7 battleships and 18 aircraft carriers. This amazing fact shows that the navy brass was acknowledging the importance of carriers even before the battles of the Coral Sea and then Midway where the aircraft carriers proved themselves to be the ship of the future and battleships were jettisoned to the dust bin.

[@williestyle35]

to the dustbin, except battleships helped protect aircraft carriers in the U S Navy and till the end of the war in a few Navies *

[@johnnydawson7675]

What was the Vichy opinion of the Dreyfus Affair?

[@kidmohair8151]

Vichy was essentially a royalist state, and the Dreyfus affair was basically an anti-semitic (specifically anti-jewish), pro-royalist, napoleonist event, and the upper levels of the Vichy government and society were all in favor of the anti jewish policies, I think you can probably guess. There is some evidence that Pétain himself was ambivalent towards jews, but Laval? As they say in France, he was laine pure, which means a dyed in the wool old school royalist, with all that implies.

[@johnnydawson7675]

@dark enlightenment Obesity is a mental disease with physical symptoms. What do you think obesity is ?

[@timsmith428]

..The British did not have a surprise attack against the French Navy. The French were told to disarm, or set sail to a Neutral port. They did neither. The worry was the Italians and the Germans getting the fleet. Therefore, the Royal Navy sunk the fleet after the French refused to leave port..

[@Ira88881]

Well, Churchill never delivered an actual ultimatum that could result in attack, and the French couldn’t fathom this was even possible. So in that respect, I guess it’s legitimate to call it a surprise attack.

[@timsmith428]

@@Ira88881 The French were given an ultimatum. It was not a surprise. The time was extended by the British many times..

[@terencewinters2154]

Was Leah'ys wife poisoned when he was ambassador ? . From the 2nd most powerful man in the world ?

[@kidmohair8151]

that the Dr Neiberg put it “…that the US would never again subcontract its security to another party..." spoke volumes. If only because that is more or less what the US has done since the end of WW2, in the form of NATO. It had to. It couldn’t really afford to do anything else. And that has brought us to the world we find ourselves living in, and coping with. 12:00 the point at which the military industrial complex, as Eisenhower named it, started to flex its acquisitive, need I say greedy, muscle, cementing its control over the nation.

[@kidmohair8151]

a little history. NATO was set up in 1949 to counter what was perceived to be the very real threat that Stalin's juggernaut of an army posed to the devastated continent of Europe. His armies had, after all, rolled up the regime that had plunged the world into WW2. Within a few years of NATO's emergence, he had set up the Warsaw Pact as a counter to NATO, which already by that time had become almost solely reliant on the US for all of its arms and equipment. The US arms industry loved that, as did the US zombie fuels industry. They were raking in billions. Fast forward to the late 1980s and the Warsaw Pact had disintegrated under the weight of its internal contradictions, to be soon followed by the collapse of the USSR. The dogs of capitalism rushed in to feed on the spoils. Which led to the tsar vlad regime that is in control of Russia today. By rights NATO should have withered away at that point as well. It didn't. It was worth too much money to the various arms manufacturers that had sprung up to feed the war machines. National economies were, and still are, reliant on the continuous consumption of the weapons of war and death.

[@talldude1412]

I can't help but disagree with you both, the value of a large powerful defensive alliance network is an enormous savings through the available economies of scale, and as a wise man once said if you're going to a gun fight, bring your friends. The expense of the failed Afghanistan campaign would have been ruinous if borne only by the US, having our friends there to help try and pull it together, even in the face of its unattainable goals, proved its worth by itself. We got to learn a valuable lesson about land wars in Asia after a traumatic terrorist event, without collapsing like the ussr did

[@kidmohair8151]

@@talldude1412 Viet Nam

[@talldude1412]

@@kidmohair8151 double learned

[@kidmohair8151]

@@talldude1412 shoulda, coulda, didn't. (I had the New Order song going through my head, fittingly)

[@chrislambert9435]

Those French Ships could have been useful against the axis forces, when the French sank their own ships they did so "for themselves" not for the allies

[@normanconnor2771]

Perhaps it shows the French hatred of the British was greater (perhaps much greater)than any other consideration.

[@chrislambert9435]

@@normanconnor2771 It was, you ought to read Churchill's account of this French betrayal

[@christianfournier6862]

Have any of these armchair Admirals (in this comments column) paused to consider that the British Jul. 1940 attack on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir might be directly the cause for the Toulon fleet of Nov. 1942 scuttling instead of sailing for Algeria? Churchill took in 1940 a decision which had lasting consequences!

[@hypothebai4634]

What Anglo-American alliance? When France fell there was no Anglo-American alliance. That alliance is an artifact of US post war policy.

[@normanconnor2771]

To say that the Anglo-American is an artifact of US post war policy is completely wrong. Germany declared war on the USA on the 11 Dec 1941, four days after the Pearl Harbour attack. The reason Hitler gave for this decision was that the USA was already at a de facto war with Germany due to many acts inconsistent with her neutral status such as: Destroyers for bases, Lead-Lease, Atlantic Charter, UK handing over military control of Iceland to USA and the American Security zone. This was the Anglo-American Alliance that you stated did not exist. Without it Britain would, in my opinion, been stared into submission by the end of 1941 and the world as we know it today would have been entirely different and I as an Englishman would be writing this in German.

[@gloriamitchell4005]

What about the vote against creating Israel

[@gordonspicer]

It was noted the Americans were in no great rush to have the Vichy French anti Jewish laws annuled when it occupied Algeria in 1942. It took, I recall, about 3 months.

[@phildyrtt6433]

Mr Neiberg is somewhat too far off the spectrum politically for me to trust much of his agenda. That is my opinion. He would strike me as one showing that most odd and quite sudden anti-German extremist stand following Comintern's ,,objection" to June of '41 realities.

[@PMMagro]

My father was born in France 1947, his realtives lived in the Vichy part of France during the war (except a prisoner or war uncle in uniform) and still do. My aunts husband was in both Vietnam and Algeria as a paratrooper later. He was no fan of De Gaulle. "les Américans" he had no issues with and admired in some ways. He did leave the military after Algeria so I do not know how representaive his views where in the military. Killing and brutalizing civilians, French civilian citizens, in Algeria was not to his liking. The very old fashioned conservatism has long roots among the French royalists. They had all the old traits of very catholic, anti-jewish, focusing on the good traditional rural life. Paxton is very correct in reading the French traditionalists. France and the French likes the USA. She considers herself a major power and does NOT accept the .. reality of the US often calling the shots. It should be us sort of (it is ok when we do it to others). It has some similarties with how we view the Germans and Germany today , there is admiration for their achivements (like going from ashes to a rich modern nation after WW2) hidden in the spiting off them. As long as we beat the British it is fine. I know that is setting the bar low but still... A very interesting lecture!

[@normanconnor2771]

No wonder when news of the news that France had surrendered to the Germans, the reaction to many in the British High Command was thank God, at lease we know where we are!

[@chrislambert9435]

After the fall of France the British expected the French Navy (headed up by Darlan at that time) to break out and continue the fight against Germany with England, the failure of Darlan and the French to do this, should never be forgotten, it created big problems for the British Navy (being overstretched) in the Mediterranean. When Darlan did not take up this offer, He missed the chance to be greater than DeGaul and any other French man in all of French History, but why ? did He do this . . . Because He believed the French should be fighting with the Germans, and this opinion was endemic in France . . . it was this type of opinion that caused the apathy which in turn caused the fall of France in 1940. Wasn't it such a sorry thing that He got assassinated ?

[@ThisNinjaSays_]

Never underestimate French Anglophobia.

[@chrislambert9435]

@@ThisNinjaSays_ Well, they got the Nazi's instead

[@cohenworrior898]

I hate to disagree with you, but I'm afraid I must. First Darlan hated the armistice and threatened to take the fleet and continue the fight under British flag like you said. However he was loyal to France, not to Britain, obviously, so when France merged in Vichy France, he joined them and vowed the Germans would never lay hands on the French fleet, an he kept his word. It's easy to condemn Vichy France now, but at that point it wasn't as clear cut, as shown by the US position towards it. He tried, but failed, to keep Vichy France neutral. A lot of revered leaders in history failed on a far bigger scale. He's considered a collaborator, but the Germans disagree as they had him replaced by Laval in January 1942. From wikipedia: _He refused to provide French conscript labour, he also insisted on protecting Jewish war veterans, and only reluctantly enforced anti-Semitic laws._ Yet he's considered a collaborator. Anyway, Laval did provide French labour and organised the deportation of Jews. That's what a real collaborator looks like. He jumped at the chance to join the allies first real chance he had after it became clear Vichy France had turned into a puppet state and _played ball_ as the US and UK acknowledged at the time. Yet history judges him harshly. Was it his lack of a square chin? Did he lack the charming personality of De Gaulle? Yes sarcasm. We'll never know.

[@cohenworrior898]

@@ThisNinjaSays_ Well, it goes both ways.

[@chrislambert9435]

@@cohenworrior898 What a Load of Bollocks, Darlan deserved the bullet He was given

[@FishtownRec]

So are you saying Philippe Petain shouldn’t have been found guilty for his crimes?

[@jimtaggert42]

now you know why the french fascist revolution occurred in algeria

[@QuizmasterLaw]

Legally wrong. France was divided into two parts, an occupied zone and an unoccupied zone. There was never a second French state and in fact Vichy is considered under French law (international law too) as a successor state to the IIId French Republic and predecessor state of the Fourth Republic. The change from Vichy to Free French was a change in governments, not a change in states. Vichy was moreover recognized as the legal government of France by the USA at least prior to Operation Torch.

[@williestyle35]

( 9:46 ) never trust an Army guy to know Naval history ( especially Royal Navy history ). Sir Winston Spencer Churchill did not order any "sneek attack" on the French Marine National at Mers el Kebir in 1940! Churchill sent a task force to negotiate with the commander there - Admiral Darlan. The ultimatum was misunderstood by the French as surrender or fight - the actual document laid out two other options - go to a "neutral port" and do not side with the Axis, or something along the lines of join the Allies against the Axis ( as existing treaties dictated ). It was Darlan that did not choose to fully negotiate and the British responded with the last options of surrender or fight. Darlan was in command and would join the Vichy French government soon after his ships and Mers el Kebir were damaged ( a couple smaller ships were temporarily "sunk", a couple effectively out for the duration ). The French Navy there not choosing either other option to stay out or join us is the trigger of the British attack, no sneaking because the French command had been told all the consequences.

[@justinwilliams2000]

Follow the science! So funny seeing people with masks on.

[@KevinBullard]

Talks dictators and omits Stalin huh

[@polyglot8]

Those comments at around 47:00 were revelatory. The MAGA movement expresses the sentiments of Vichy!

[@shawnwhitehead3062]

It's funny that you should mention the Indiana Jones Warehouse in Carlisle my father was a member of the 83rd infantry unit in the painting was given to him by a a widow that gave him a painting depicting a company of soldiers putting communication wires down I believe from the Battle of the Bulge I was sitting there with my father when they promised him that they wouldn't send the picture to that warehouse they promised it would be hung in the library naturally delighted never got hung in the library it's just sitting in that warehouse for years he regretted the decision to allow them to have that painting it should have been said gone to the 83 Infantry but that was the Dead Man's wish who painted that painting and it was a good-sized painting I had to suspend it in the back of my pickup truck it took up the full bed of the truck

[@willboudreau1187]

"As far as the British were concerned, those 50 destroyers were useless." Ummm, just an amateur historian here, but that statement is bogus, Mr. Neiberg. Then why in the Holy Hell did Churchill repeatedly request those destroyers, always turned down by Roosevelt, until after Dec. 7th, and then ultimately giving up overseas British military bases along with favored nation trading status for the Empire in order to acquire those "useless destroyers"????? You're sucking wind on this point, Neiberg, absolutely fell flat on your face with this point. Churchill saw those destroyers as very valuable, and even though they were WWI vintage, they were a hell of alot better than NOTHING, which is what the British had at that point for convoy escorts.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

You’re not just an amateur historian but a bad one: the usual argument is that WC and FDR wanted the deal to establish a precedent that could be built on. And, no, the RN didn’t possess “nothing” as convoy escorts - in fact they had to take on a large part of the job of protecting US coastal trade when the US entered the war, and the old destroyers were virtually useless against u boats because they had too large a turning circle and were easily avoided during depth charge runs.

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

…There was a shortage of escorts for a time but that was artificially created by churchills stupidity in assigning them to offensive hunter groups…

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

As for surface actions, the kriegsmarine was down to just 12 destroyers after Norway…

[@TheGreatAmphibian]

Checking the record, between the entire 40? ships, they managed two solo u boat kills, partial credits on 2 more, and apparently no surface kills. There were individual corvettes that did more damage to the Axis than that.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@TheGreatAmphibian Yep. WINSTON S CHURCHILL. THE SECOND WORLD WAR. CASSELL & CO LTD VOLUME II THEIR FINEST HOUR REVISED EDITION NOVEMBER 1950. P533 ‘Prime Minister to First Sea Lord 14.XII.40’ Let me have a full account of the condition of the American destroyers, showing their many defects and the little use we have been able to make of them so far. I should like to have the paper by me for consideration in the near future.’